Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Shravan Kumar Pathak v. State of M. P.
Criminal Revision No. 2186 of 2022 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District Satna; Decided on 16.6.2025
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- Income Tax Act, 1961 -- S. 132A(1) -- scope of power u/s. 457 of CrPC -- application u/s. 457 rejected on ground that Income Tax Department has issued warrant of authorization against seized articles to applicant -- held -- if stolen cash amount and gold are unaccounted and are required to be taxed, then Income Tax Department is free to initiate proceeding against applicant in a different provision of Act, 1961 -- in proceeding initiated u/s. 457 of CrPC, Court has to see whether applicant satisfies Court and further, by fulfilling requisite conditions, any order on application can be passed or not. [Para 8
(2) Income Tax Act, 1961 -- S. 132A(1) -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- applicability of S. 132A of Act, 1961 -- in criminal case, stolen property seized by police from accused -- Income Tax Department cannot claim possession over said seized property by issuing notice u/s. 132A of Act, 1961 -- that is a separate proceeding -- can be initiated only after decision of Court. [Para 11
(3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 457 -- Income Tax Act, 1961 -- S. 132A(1) -- application u/s. 457 of CrPC -- after complaint of theft by applicant, police seized stolen articles from accused -- thereafter, applicant filed application for handing over of possession of seized articles in his favour, annexing documents of his ownership over those articles -- trial Court, on objection raised by Income Tax Department, rejected the application -- held -- trial Court, on a mere objection raised by Income Tax Department, cannot reject application preferred by applicant for the reason that it is duty of Court to see whether person claiming possession over seized articles satisfies Court by producing cogent evidence of his/her ownership -- applicant has not only filed certificate issued by Tahsildar, but also filed other relevant documents of his title over seized articles -- order in this regard ought to have been passed -- impugned order set aside -- trial Court directed to allow application filed by applicant subject to satisfaction of relevant documents showing his ownership over seized articles. (1985) 156 ITR 233 (All.), Cr. M. C. No. 1742 of 2024 (Ker.), 2022 SCC Online Ker. 11017 and (2023) SCC Online Ker. 8444 relied on. M. Cr. C. No. 46235 of 2020 decided on 24.11.2023 and (1990) JLJ 734 distinguished. [Paras 12 & 13
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 457 && vk;&dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 132d¼1½ && naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 457 ds v/khu 'kfä dh O;kfOr èkkjk 457 ds v/khu vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd vk;dj foHkkx us vfHkx`ghr oLrqvksa ds lanHkZ esa vkosnd dks çkf/kdkj okjaV tkjh fd;k gS && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ;fn pqjkbZ xbZ /kujkf'k vkSj Lo.kZ dk fglkc ugha fn;k x;k gS rFkk mu ij dj nsuk visf{kr gS rks vk;dj foHkkx lu~ 1961 ds vf/kfu;e ds fHkUu mica/k ds vèkhu vkosnd ds fo:) dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus dks Lora= gS && naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 457 ds v/khu dk;Zokgh esa] U;k;ky; dks ns[kuk gksrk gS fd vkosnd U;k;ky; dk lek/kku djrk gS ;k ugha rFkk blds vfrfjä] vko';d 'krksaZ dks iwjk djus ij- vkosnu ij dksbZ vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS ;k ughaA ¼iSjk 8
¼2½ vk;&dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 132d¼1½ && naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 457 && lu~ 1961 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 132d ykxw gksuk && nkafMd çdj.k esa] pqjkbZ xbZ laifÙk iqfyl }kjk vfHk;qä ls vfHkx`ghr && vk;dj foHkkx lu~ 1961 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 132d ds v/khu lwpuk tkjh dj mä vfHkx`ghr laifÙk ij dCts dk nkok ugha dj ldrk && og i`Fkd~ dk;Zokgh gksrh gS && U;k;ky; ds fofu'p; ds mijkar gh vkjaHk dh tk ldrh gSA ¼iSjk 11
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 457 && vk;&dj vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 132d¼1½ && naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 457 ds v/khu vkosnu && vkosnd }kjk pksjh dh f'kdk;r fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ iqfyl us pqjkbZ xbZ oLrq,¡ vfHk;qä ls vfHkx`ghr dha && rnqijkar] vkosnd us mu oLrqvksa ij vius LokfeRo ds nLrkost layXu djrs gq,] vfHkx`ghr oLrqvksa dk dCtk mls lkSais tkus ds fy, vkosnu çLrqr fd;k && vk;dj foHkkx }kjk vkifÙk fd, tkus ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vkosnu [kkfjt dj fn;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && fopkj.k U;k;ky;] vk;dj foHkkx }kjk dh xbZ vkifÙk ek= ij] vkosnd }kjk çLrqr vkosnu blfy, ukeatwj ugha dj ldrk D;ksafd U;k;ky; dk drZO; ;g ns[kus dk gS fd vfHkx`ghr oLrqvksa ds dCts dk nkok djus okys@okyh O;fä }kjk vius LokfeRo dk rdZiw.kZ lk{; is'k dj U;k;ky; dk lek/kku fd;k x;k gS ;k ugha vkosnd us rglhynkj }kjk tkjh çek.ki= gh çLrqr ugha fd;k] vfirq vfHkx`ghr oLrqvksa ij vius gd ds vU; lqlaxr nLrkost Hkh çLrqr fd,] bl ckjs esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk && vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr && vfHkx`ghr oLrqvksa ij mldk LokfeRo n'kkZus okys lqlaxr nLrkostksa ds ckjs esa lek/kku ds v/;/khu] vkosnd }kjk çLrqr vkosnu eatwj djus ds fy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; funsf'krA ¼1985½ 156 vkbVhvkj 233 ¼byk-½ lhvkj- ,e- lh- Ø- 1742 lu~ 2024 ¼dsjy½] 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu dsjy 11017 rFkk ¼2023½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu dsjy 8444 voyafcrA nkafMd çdh.kZ ekeyk Ø- 46235 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 24-11-2023 rFkk ¼1990½ ts,yts 734 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13
ORDER
1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is finally heard.
2. In this revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the challenge is made to an order dated 8.4.2022 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Court of Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, District Satna, whereby an application filed by him under section 457 of the CrPC has been rejected by the trial Court.
3. As per facts of the case, in pursuance of a complaint made by the applicant to the police saying that on 24.3.2021 at about 02:00 AM, a theft had been committed in his house wherein cash amounting to rupees three crores and four kgs. of gold got stolen, the police vide FIR/Crime No.412/2021 registered an offence against unknown persons.
(3.1) After making investigation, the police arrested the accused and recovered the stolen articles (gold and cash) from their possession.
(3.2) Subsequently, an application under section 457 of the CrPC was moved by the applicant before the trial Court for handing over the possession of articles seized by the police in his favour.
(3.3) In the meantime, the Income Tax Department and prosecution raised an objection to the application moved by the applicant under section 457 of the CrPC saying that just to evade the tax liability, the applicant kept such a huge cash amount and gold in his house, which otherwise is a loss to the Government and as such, custody of the seized articles cannot be handed over to the applicant. In addition, by moving a letter before the trial Court, the Assistant Director, Income Tax, had also asked for the custody of the articles recovered from the thieves.
(3.4) Ultimately, the trial Court by the impugned order dated 8.4.2022 (Annexure-P/6) has rejected the application preferred by the applicant saying that since the enquiry of Income Tax Department has not been concluded so far and the amount may be a subject matter of the confiscation, if it is found unaccounted, therefore, it would not be proper to handover the possession of seized articles in favour of the applicant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, this revision has been filed.
4. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that rejection of application only on the ground that an objection has come from the Income Tax Department saying that against the seized articles since they have already issued a warrant of authorization under section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act, 1961’) and, therefore, possession of those articles cannot be handed over to the applicant, is not proper on the part of the trial Court. He has submitted that the scope of supurdgimana under section 457 of the CrPC is to return the articles to the rightful owner, once the investigation is over. He has further submitted that the applicant, in the FIR, has demonstrated the fact about the seized articles and even produced the relevant documentary evidence in this regard before the trial Court. He has also submitted that the Income Tax Department has no locus to oppose the application preferred by the applicant. He has also submitted that while rejecting the application, even the trial Court has failed to appreciate the factual aspect of the matter that the applicant has a legal right over the seized articles.
5. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the objector has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and in fact, the same does not call for any interference. He has submitted that the Income Tax Department has already issued a warrant of authorization under section 132A(1) of the Act, 1961 against the seized articles to the applicant so as to ascertain as to whether he has earned the said property by following the legal track and for that required income tax has been paid or not. He has further submitted that when a warrant of authorization under secti
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
